The United States announced a $2 billion commitment to the United Nations on Monday humanitarian aid as President Donald Trump’s administration cuts US foreign aid and warns United Nations Agencies must “adapt, shrink or die” in a time of new financial realities.
The money is just a small fraction of what the U.S. has contributed in the past, but reflects what the administration believes is still a generous amount that will maintain America’s status as the world’s largest donor of humanitarian aid.
“This new model will better share the burden of the United Nations’ humanitarian work with other developed countries and requires the United Nations to reduce bloat, eliminate duplication and commit to effective new impact, accountability and oversight mechanisms,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on social media.
The commitment will create a fund of funds from which money will be distributed to agencies and priorities. This is a key part of U.S. calls for drastic changes at the United Nations, which have alarmed many humanitarian workers and led to significant cuts to programs and services.
The $2 billion is just a fraction of traditional U.S. humanitarian funding for U.N.-coordinated programs, which has amounted to as much as $17 billion a year in recent years, according to U.N. data. U.S. officials say only $8 billion to $10 billion of that was voluntary contributions. The United States also pays billions of dollars in annual contributions associated with its UN membership.
“The piggy bank is not open to organizations that just want to go back to the old system,” Jeremy Lewin, the State Department official in charge of foreign aid, said at a news conference in Geneva on Monday. “President Trump has made it clear that the system is dead.”
The State Department said: “Individual UN agencies must adapt, shrink or die.” Critics say the cuts in Western aid were short-sighted, forcing millions of people into hunger, displacement or illness and damaging U.S. soft power around the world.
The move caps a year of crisis for many UN agencies, including its refugee, migration and food aid agencies. The Trump administration has already cut billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid, prompting officials to cut spending, aid projects and thousands of jobs. Other traditional Western donors have also reduced their spending.
Get national news daily
Receive the most important news as well as headlines from politics, business and current affairs in your inbox once a day.
The U.S. commitment to aid programs run by the United Nations – the world’s largest donor of humanitarian aid and the largest recipient of U.S. humanitarian aid – is fleshed out in a preliminary agreement with the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), led by Tom Fletcher, a former British diplomat and government official.
Fletcher, who has spent the past year urging U.S. officials not to abandon U.N. funding entirely, expressed optimism at the signing of the agreement in Geneva.
“It’s a very, very significant groundbreaking contribution. And a month ago I would have expected the number to have been zero,” he told reporters. “And so I think before I worry about what we don’t have, I want to look at the millions of people whose lives will be saved, whose lives will be made better by this contribution, and start there.”
Even as the U.S. withdraws aid, needs have increased around the world: famine has been recorded in parts of conflict-ridden Sudan and the Gaza Strip this year, and floods, droughts and natural disasters that many scientists attribute to climate change have claimed many lives or forced thousands from their homes.
The cuts will have a significant impact on UN affiliates such as the International Organization for Migration, the World Food Program and the UNHCR refugee agency. They have already received billions less from the US this year than under the Biden administration’s annual allocations – or even during Trump’s first term.
Now the idea is for Fletcher’s office — whose goal is to improve efficiency — to become a funnel for U.S. and other aid funds to be funneled to those agencies, rather than isolated U.S. contributions to a variety of individual aid appeals.
Asked by reporters whether the US language of “adapt or die” worried him, Fletcher said: “If the choice is adapt or die, I choose adapt.”
The USA is striving to consolidate development aid
U.S. officials say the $2 billion is just an initial expenditure to fund OCHA’s annual appeal. Fletcher noticed the changing aid landscape and scaled back the request earlier this year. Other traditional UN donors such as Britain, France, Germany and Japan have reduced their aid allocations this year and sought reforms.
“This humanitarian reset at the United Nations should deliver more aid with less taxpayer dollars – more targeted, results-oriented aid consistent with U.S. foreign policy,” said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz.
At their core, the changes will help establish funding pools that can be targeted either at specific crises or countries in need. A total of 17 countries will initially be targeted, including Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Syria and Ukraine.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also welcomed the announcement, saying that “every dollar counts.”
Two of the world’s most desperate countries, Afghanistan and Yemen, are not included, with U.S. officials citing the diversion of aid to the Taliban and Houthi rebels as concerns about resuming donations.
Also not mentioned on the list are the Palestinian territories, which officials say will be covered by money from Trump’s still incomplete Gaza peace plan.
The UN project, which has been in the works for months, is based on Trump’s longstanding view that the world body has made big promises but has failed to deliver on them and has – in his eyes – strayed too far from its original mission of saving lives while undermining American interests, promoting radical ideologies and encouraging wasteful, unaccountable spending.
“Nobody wants to be a recipient of aid. Nobody wants to live in a UNHCR camp because they were displaced by conflict,” Lewin said. “The best thing we can do to reduce costs, and President Trump understands this and that is why he is the President of Peace, is to end armed conflict and allow communities to return to peace and prosperity.”
Lee reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Farnoush Amiri contributed from New York.
